A new human evolutionary ancestor "Australopithecus sediba" has been discovered in Africa. The species name means "religious sin" in Sumerian. (Source: Brett Eloff/Wits University)

Dr. Lee Berger from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg (front) leads a team of researchers through the countryside. (Source: Wits University)

The skeletons were found in a collapsed cave. (Source: Wits University)

Dr. Berger with one of the skeletons (Source: Wits University)

The scientific evidence that man and apes descended from a common ancestor via evolution grows

When
you talk to a biochemist or biologist at a university level these
days about the "evolutionary debate" they're likely to
laugh; after all if you are knowledgeable modern scientist, you know
that the vast body of molecular, genetic, fossil, anatomical, and
field biology evidence all points to the same thing -- that organisms
evolved via natural selection and genetic drift over the last 3
billion years.

More evidence may not
convince skeptics,
but for those interested in science an incredible
discovery was made this year. Paleontologists digging
in South Africa have unearthed a pair of partial hominid
skeletons that represent a new species on the human evolutionary
tree.

Scientists have named the
creatures Australopithecus
sediba.
The species lived in Africa less than 2 million years ago. In
contrast with "Lucy", the 3 million year
old Australopithecus
afarensis fossil
found in Ethiopia in 1974, the new skeletons are taller and are less
ape-like in facial structure.

Researchers estimate that the
pair lived between 1.78 and 1.95 million years ago. They walked
upright, like later hominids and had long forearms and short
fingers. They also had very long legs, which the
paleontologists believe were conducive for running across the African
wilderness, which would be a key to escaping predators and finding
food.

Dr. Lee Berger from the University of the Witwatersrand
in Johannesburg and Dr. Paul Dirks from Australia's James Cook
University led the team that found the pair in a collapsed cave in
South Africa's Malapa cave complex.

They speculate
that our unfortunate ancestors died quite young. One skeleton,
a male, appeared to be only 10 and 13 at his time of death, while a
second, a female, appeared to be in her late 20s or early 30s.
It is thought that the pair was searching for water, and likely fell
into the cave on accident, receiving fatal injuries.

The pair
did have some ape-like features, according to Dr. Berger. He
says their brains were "remarkably small" based on the
skulls discovered and states, "they could still climb trees
[and] they were very competent walking ... on the ground."

The
fossils have smaller teeth and advanced pelvises, though, hallmarks
of human evolution. Still Dr. Berger prefers that people don't
call them a "missing link", which he feels is an outdated
term. He remarks, "I don't like the use of that term.
[It's a] Victorian-era [term that] implies some (specific) chain of
evolution."

He does say the fossils will offer an
incredible contribution to understanding how humans evolved into our
current form. The truly exciting part, he revealed, is that
there are several other partial hominid skeletons that were
discovered, but have not yet been unearthed. In addition to the
hominids, a saber-toothed cat, a brown hyena, and a wild dog were
also found among the remains.

Dr. Berger and Dr. Dirks
co-authored two journal papers on the discovery in the prestigious
AAAS journal Science.
The papers can be found here and here,
respectively.

Some skeptics in the U.S. and abroad continue to
denounce paleontology. For most, it's due to religious reasons,
as they find the idea of evolution "sinful" due to its
contradiction of literal interpretations of text found in The
Torah, The Bible, and The Koran, and other religious works.

The
name itself represents a perhaps humorous double meaning in terms of
scientific theory and religious beliefs. In the local language
Sotho "sediba" means "spring."
However, many note its close similarity to the word "sebida", which means "sin" in Sumerian. In Sumerian
"sebida" refers, more
specifically, "a religious sin that entails the anger of the
gods and a stain upon the soul." To some, that's exactly
what the new skeletons represent, and perhaps researchers thus used
the name to both describe what they feel the skeletons represent (the
"spring" from which man sprung) and to poke a bit of fun at
these in the public who are abandoning the scientific process.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not all of us atheists are rude.My comment on the matter is this: there is hard science behind evolution. As long as creationism isn't trying to be passed off and taught as science(not with tax $$) then all is well. The whole idea of a 'fall' from paradise with Adam and Eve (central to Christianity) requires a stretch of imagination to reconcile with the theory of evolution. I personally it's compatible. Why would I need to be saved? Why did god make sin, if there was no Adam and Eve? Many more questions pop up.Theodicy (problem of evil) is a much tougher problem for monotheists than the origins of physical laws is for scientists. We may never know or explain everything, in part because science is more about probabilities than certainties, and that is ok. Why does a supernatural being have to fill that gap for you?Anyway, I'll just keep trying to be a better person and hopefully there isn't some kind of eternal punishment just because I didn't believe.Sorry for the long comment, be good!

You can have good solid science that supports creation without any shred of religeon. In fact you could just teach science. Because much of the science i was taught in school that supposedly supports macro-evolution, truly does not. why must the theory of evolution be taught as if it is fact?

what science can observe. Mutations render the organism weak and most likely unable to reproduce. and mutation do not result in complex organs that previously did not exist within the organism... (for example, a human can mutate to have an extra finger or degraded forms of the body, not to have fish scales cover their body or an extra well functioning stomach) and hybrids don't reproduce. and mutations never compliment other mutations. these scientific observations are all smoothed over by 40 billion years. or whatever the going number is.... but the fact is. science logically dis-proves macro evolution.

Your post demostrates a shocking lapse of understanding of the basic tenets of evolution. Why not learn a little about the subject, before you attempt to debate it?

Just for starters, mutations do not "render the organism weak and most likely unable to reproduce". Every person alive has thousands of mutations (the normal rate is something like 10E-5 per base pair). The vast majority of these have little effect.

I won't even go into your other fallacies, such as the variation on the old "but eyes can't evolve on their own!" hack argument. Suffice it to say, they're based on flawed understanding of what evolution really states -- which even 15 minutes of research should be enough to convince you.

convince away... and don't assume someone has not spent enough time reading evolutionary theory simply because they find it flawed. I just like science to observe and roport. sorry, I don't elevate it to making wild assumptions of how all things came about from mutation. by the way. I am human. not a mutant. my genetic code will live on in my offspring unchanged. species do not become other species. these are the assumptions of the evolutionary scientists. and not observed.

" I am human. not a mutant. my genetic code will live on in my offspring unchanged. these are assumptions...not observed"

This is a truly shocking level of ignorance. Are you honestly not aware that molecular biologists are not only observing the mutation rate in the human genome, but precisely able to calculate its prevalence?

This isn't even open to debate. You can go today, get yours and your parents genome sequenced, and count how many base pairs you have that don't exist anywhere within either parent. This has already been done many times, and the result is a mutation rate per base pair of about 10E-6.

quote: All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

It's important to note that the site liberally mixes the word "evolution" in a biological and geological sense.

And, more importantly, any scientists who refers to granite as a "creation rock" is not worth their salt and should certainly NOT be voicing geological opinions. Granite is being formed to this very day as a product of metamorphism in amphibolite and granulite terrains. Any geologist could tell you this.

The idea that all granite was "created" at a certain time period is patently false.

The only grain of truth here is that much of the Earth's granite was produced during the cooling of the crust during the Pre-Cambrian period. However, a multitude of science indicates that this occurred billions of years ago, not 6,000 years ago as your pseudo-science link indicates.

quote: One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

Again, this is ridiculous. Of COURSE polonium could make its way into granite. Polonium has a lower melting point than SiO2 and thus could easily have intruded in molten form as the rock was forming. Many impurities can be found in Granite, Sparkie.

And as to the whole polonium halo load of tripe, that was disproven TWO decades ago. It was blatant misinformation perpetuated by a profit-driven creationist who made numerous errors and had little real knowledge of Geology.

The idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old flies in the face of cold hard data collected in the fields of biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and more.

It's fine if you want to believe that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, or that the great alien overlord Xenu brought humans to Earth and used thermonuclear explosions to shape the terrain, but please please don't make ignorant claims that "real" science backs you up when IT DOESN'T

Q. Why faith? Why sin?A. Would you rather have someone do anything for you because they were forced, or would you rather they do anything for you because they chose it? Would you rather do something for someone who forces you to do it, or would you rather do something for someone because you have faith? It is not how much proof we need to believe, it is how much faith we need to receive His proof. Before man, there was no choice! We are created to make one perfect choice, that may be based on many other (and others) choices, once accountable. I DARE you to try it, you WILL get your proof!

Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10 2000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

The bible has been re-written, thousands of times. Stories have been edited, added, removed. Why is that Jesus sometimes speaks in parable and sometimes speaks directly? This is due to mistranslations, that or severe schizophrenia.

Dude you should read my college history book, it successfully predicted THOSANDS of events, sometimes it got them with in the minute of their exact time.

In fact, you're an animal, that came to be after millions and millions of years of evolution and mutation.

I believe your logic is similar to the Church when they persecuted Galileo and Copernicus, by assuming that the Earth is indeed the center of everything, while in fact you're just another species in the vast ecology on Earth.

You're both right on the human vs. animal question. It depends on what definition of animal you use. The scientific definition is about common characteristics, and humans fall squarely in with the animals. But common usage of the term animal does not refer to humans. This is often a problem in explaining scientific ideas to lay people - science has adopted common terms and given them specific meanings that only partially overlap the common meanings. Combine that with the fact that the meanings of common words 'evolve' over time (take the word 'corn', for instance, which meant cereal grains of all types before the new world was discovered, or 'meat', which just meant food), and you have a recipe for misunderstanding.

But that's a misunderstanding that's easily cleared up, just by explaining what a scientist means by "animal", and how it differs from common usage. It doesn't have to devolve into a metaphysical debate.

As for the question of evolution, the question of the origin of the complex organs was answered in broad strokes in Darwin's Origin of Species, and the ideas still hold true, because the reasoning was cogent.

For the evolution of the eye, for instance, he used examples from widely different species, from simple paramecia, which can sense light, to multi-celled creatures with photo-sensitive cells but no focusing method, to an enclosure with poor focusing ability, and on up the chain, showing how more and more 'evolved' species had 'eyes' that were more and more functional. He also pointed out that the human eye is far from the "perfect" organ that detractors called it. It is inherently flawed - and in ways that support evolution, which can only improve on what exists unthinkingly, without a master plan.

He used another method in demonstrating a likely evolutionary path for the lungs. He took closely allied species of fish, and showed how their swim bladders differed. The oxygen in the air in their swim bladders naturally would leech into neighboring blood vessels, and different related species had swim bladders which could take more or less advantage of this fact, based on circulatory system proximity to the bladder wall and the complexity of the wall's structure to maximize surface area for oxygen exchange.

I'm not saying that evolution explains everything. But instead of deciding that that means it is wrong, maybe crazy smart (was that his name?) should help contribute. After all, theories only get tossed out when something better comes along to explain the facts. So, to him I say, either come up with a better scientific explanation of the facts, or come up with new facts that directly contradict the theory of evolution. Because scientists have already looked into the objections just raised, and found them wanting.

I don't usually get into the debate of evolution. Not anymore anyway, after years of debating I finally figured out that most people just pick a side and stick with it, regardless of facts.

I only want to comment on this, as this is always the way it ends when talking to an evolutionist... "Please go and educate yourself." The conversation always ends with the evolutionist arrogantly declaring that the non-evolutionist is simply, uneducated, has a lower IQ or is in self-denial. Few evolutionists are willing to concede that when two people study the same data, they can come up with two equally plausible causes. I no longer debate evolution, I now only debate the nature of truth.

Example: An alien comes to Earth. He points at a sheep and says its black. We say no, its white. But perhaps the alien sees everything like a film negative. To him it really is black. Who's right? It's about perception. Two people looking at the same fossil can have two different conclusions. A)that is species y and it evolved into species x, or b) species y was just a cousin of species x, they share some features, but that doesn't mean one turned into the other.

Now if the alien says that is a quadruped, we could agree, that is a fact, it walks on four legs. Then the evolutionist says it evolved over millions of years. And the alien says no, I brought it here, along with your ancestors. Now, I don't believe in this theory, as there is currently no solid evidence to indicate aliens put us here. But if it were true, then we would in fact be missing a huge piece of the puzzle, which led us to come up with a wild theory called evolution. Now you say well, dinosaurs died because of a meteor or whatever the current theory is. The alien says no, that was an accident, my exhaust ignited as I left the planet last time, oops, my bad. The evolutionist/physicist/geologist or whoever had made a theory based on very loose evidence, but was missing a key piece, the alien.

Again, I don't subscribe to this, I am using it as an example of making assumptions and then calling them facts. It's fine to have a theory and investigate it, but you have to leave room for the fact that you dont have all the evidence in hand. And you shouldnt indoctrinate children and joe six pack that evolution is a fact, when there is still a debate.

You're basing your argument on a lack of understanding of the scientific principle. Scientific fact isn't the same thing as literal fact, rather it represents the most likely model we can construct based upon observation and the incidental evidence that's available at the time.

Scientific fact is designed to be questioned and changed because it's all based on a process.

Evolution represents scientific fact not only due to being based on observation and a lot of incidental evidence but because there's really no alternative hypothesis that's got any amount of supporting evidence at all.

Religious dogma or alien implantation aren't discounted as viable alternatives to evolution because the ideas are somehow offensive to modern science but rather due to the complete lack of any supportiing evidence.

It's all well and good to say that we shouldn't teach our children anything that isn't literal fact, as opposed to scientific fact, but you might want to stop and think about what that would mean for a moment.

History is at best a best-guess interpretation. Certain areas of mathematics and number theory is just that, since we currently lack the tools to prove certain relations even for a system we've created ourselves. And let's not even get started on physics.

My "lack of understanding of the scentific principle" is exactly the same as everyone else. Because no one ever really points this out. It is taught in schools and to the public as fact, with no distinction given between "scientific" or "literal" fact. It is simply presented as "fact". There may be a distinction, but when that distinction is never really made to joe public, then the distinction is just a textbook footnote.

At least now it is presented as fact. I can remember maybe twenty years ago, they still used words like "scientists believe" or "the going theory is".

Have you been watching evolutionary theory over the years? Every ten years, it completely changes. Some like to say it is an "evolving" theory (no pun intended). But from my perspective, all I see is that every time evidence comes along that disproves the going evolutionary theory, they just quickly rejumble the puzzle pieces and come up with a new theory until that one is disproved as well. Again, some like to say that is part of the scientific method. But from my perspective, it looks like they are so desperate to cling to this idea, that given evidence that disproves it, they scramble to come up with another half-assed theory to cling to for support.

Sorry, but the science is in the debate is since long lost for on the creationist side.Those who are against it all have always (I have never seen an objection to this) problems with evolution only because of religious beliefs. They start with the God assumption and the work their way to the correct conclusions which fits their mind-juggle, leading to all sorts of pseudoscience which the world has already enough of with beliefs into things such as homeopathy and other woo woo.

"Biologists do not have to believe that there are transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries in the rocks all the time. Scientists do not have to believe that the solar system is 4.5 billions years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moon, and meteoritic rocks very accurately. We do not have to believe that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals in the laboratory; we can repeat the experiments, with comparable results. We can also create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural selection in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists on faith —and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of the evidence."--Tm M. Berra, PhD, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

vs

If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.-William Jennings Bryan

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[2] The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

At least some on this side make some compromises like "ok, evolution is true, but only for animals". The Catholic church is at least on the right side of this...it usually takes them a lot of time to get to facts correct.

You've only proven my point here.You did exactly what I said, you assumed certain things about whether I or other creationist have studied the data.

An Evolutionist studies in order to prove evolution.A Creationist studies in order to prove creation.

Few, if any, scientists come into the study objectively with no pre-conceptions.

If you want to "prove" evolution, you will. Because the pieces of the puzzle can be made to fit that way. I could "prove" creation with the exact same data, just looking at it from another perspective, turning the puzzle pieces at a different angle.

I am very, very tempted to respond directly to your other points/quotes, but I know from years of experience how pointless it is. *sigh* The evolution debate is very tired for me. I just don't have the desire to do it anymore.

I will only say this... it would take an enormous leap of faith for me to believe in evolution given all the "evidence" I have studied. I am in awe of anyone who could believe in such amazing ideas with such loosely linked and circumstantial evidence. (I'm afraid that sounds a little condescending, but it's true)

"don't assume someone has not spent enough time reading evolutionary theory simply because they find it flawed."

No one is assuming you haven't spent time reading evolutionary theory just because you find it flawed... We are assuming you haven't read it because your understanding of it is fundamentally flawed. There is no way you could have read about, and UNDERSTOOD evolutionary theory and still said what I am quoting. It is impossible.

Really?What about those moths in Industrial Revolution England with a genetic mutation that allowed them to blend in better to their sooty environment and out reproducing the lighter colored ones. They survived to breed more since the lighter colored moths were easier to see by their predators.

How do you also not observe what horse, dog, and livestock breeders do to evolve unique breeds within the same species to adapt to specific behaviors by breeding similar animals with similar mutations.

How about hybrid fruits created by grafting? Those breeds were admittedly "evolutionary" with the natural process of time enhanced.

God exists. Humans have put a face on him,her.it and called it religion to explain hwo he,she it works. Don't qoute religious text to me since all you do is quote man, not God. Even science is a type of religion but it has the capacity to change through observation and not be canonized to be become superstition. If God were infallible, explain extinction. What possible reason did the Tasmanian tiger have to die out? By angering a God which had allowed it to coexist with us, his image, all these thousands, if not millions, of years. The Tasmanian tiger died out less than 200 hundreds years ago and i don't remember any "god" decrees as to why that tiger angered him.

The theory you present above contains a stable or continuously decreasing number of distinct species for 40 billion years. You assert that all mutations weaken the organism.Neither assertion seems obvious to me.

1) If species survive in the ever-changing world for an average of, say, a million years, and there are, (guesstimate) 60,000 species now, there would have been (6 * 10^4) * 2^(40,000,000,000/1,000,000) species at the beginning. They wouldn't fit on the planet.

2) I don't see the reason why, for instance, a human with 1% more or less salt in his sweat would necessarily be "weaker". It seems more likely that the saltier person would do better in a high salt environment, while the other would do better where salt is scarce. There are mutations at the DNA level in every generation, and some, at least might be useful in some environments.

This doesn't prove that there is a viable evolutionary path connecting each and every species. Your example of one stomach becoming two seems like a good topic for speculation. However, concluding a priori that no mutations can ever be improvements doesn't seem obvious. It's like looking at the million words in the English language and concluding that spelling errors make words weaker.

I think evolution is an interesting subject, and not at all incompatible with the ten commandments or the cleansing of sin via baptism. Let's not let stone-age versus modern scientific theory become the litmus test of religion.

Now I do appreciate your analysis. I would say you are one of very few that is taking a leveled approach. so thank you for that. I want to point out that I was not meaning to assert an absolute. I am referring to what is observed. Mutations that we see change the physical structure of an organism, usually weakens it; making it less competative. and I meant "usually" because one cannot observe billions of years of mutation. I ask if we have proof of black holes or do we have scientific observations? I believe that they exist. the science seems rational. the evolutionary science seems to ignore a lot of scientific observations. specifically ones that don't support it. so the conclusion must be suspect.

I might check that book out. But I'm sure I won't ever earn your opinion of having understanding or not being ignorant. unless I decide to believe that species evolve (mutate) to become more advanced species, i suppose.

Right. And in doing so, they often evolve in a manner which we would call less advanced, rather than more.

Further, they often involve in ways which neither help nor hinder their ability to survive. Simple genetic drift. And, under some rare cases, they can temporarily evolve in a manner which actually reduces their ability to survive.

All this makes perfect sense if you understand the rather simple mathematics behind evolution.

Less? How so? Someone who is Asian is more or less advanced than your typical European? The fact that Asians have epicanthal folds around their eyes to protect their eyes from the extreme sunlight and cold temperatures of the Asian plains means that they have evolved to fit their habitat. Yet Europeans do not have epicanthal folds to protect their eyes as they are not needed in their habitat. I would hardly say one is more advanced than the other. Rather, they have simply evolved to suit their respective habitats.

Examining a much larger evolutionary period of human evolution, one can easily see that our brain size has increased greatly over many years. This certainly increases our ability to survive.

Really, all of this is not too much to comprehend. Anyone who doesn't live with their head under a rock, already knows all of this. Not really sure how I can expand...

You've managed to entirely miscomprehend my post. Try reading it again. I'm not even talking about human evolution. Many species have evolved over time into forms that are simpler, less complex, less intelligent, etc -- forms we would generally say are less advanced, rather than more.

Further, many species have evolved in ways which reduce their ability to survive, rather than increase it, such as Darwin's famous Peacock Principle example. Evolution doesn't promote survival per se. It promotes reproduction. Survival is very closely tied to reproduction rates, but its not a perfect correlation. Some traits can increase your chances to reproduce, but lower your survival ability.

There is really no reason for you two to be arguing. From where I am sitting both of you are making legitimate arguments, but just saying seperate ideas--both correct. You both obviously have an appreciation for biology.

I do tend to agree with Stang's point though, that an environment specific adaptation cannot directly be compared to any other. An organism may have a high level of fitness and adaptation to its environment, but this state is completely proprietary to the environment Whatever it takes to survive in the niche is what counts, not how it "compares" to somewhere else. Unless you're a human adventurer (undersea, high altitude, space) or something!

Mutations can be silent, deleterious or beneficial. I guess there are mutations that are intrinsically deleterious or beneficial. Like missing a metabolic enzyme as in phenylketonuria.

Another interesting case (if your into psychology or psychiatry) is that of the COMT gene. Makes an enzyme needed to degrade monoamines in the prefrontal cortex. Antipsychotic drugs block dopamine receptors (hmmm). Its not a 1:1 causative agent, but it is a commonly polymorphic gene. Mental illnesses are believed by some to be pleoitropic or governed by balancing selection. If it were SOLELY deleterious then it should eliminate itself out of the population.

But the brain is complex and interconnected. Therefore decreased COMT activity (or any number of other common schizo mutations--commonly SNPs) may carry some other positive benefit. Maybe they increase motivation, or enhance reward--both classic dopamine roles.

The classic case is malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia. But here you see the positive mutation is environmentally proprietary. However, everyone needs to oxygenate their hemoglobin.

In some ways you are correct. Evolution based on mutation rates alone, probably could not account for the successful diversity we see in the world today and in the fossil record. However, evolution is not the end of the story. Its evolution BY Natural Selection. This is the key. Any meaningless mutations (drift) are ignored by selection (selection = survival with reproduction or death without reproduction) pressures, detrimental mutations are quickly weeded out, and beneficial ones are selected for. Its not random, its not a pure # generator game.

Observations are great. They are the foundation of science. But they are just a means to an ends. They give information to us for the purpose of higher thinking and formation of understanding more than individual facts. Its the same logic as is used in the judicial system. Fact 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 30 = conclusion A about the defendant. Sometimes the judicial system, and science, gets it wrong, but usually its discovered through more science, and its the best, more accurate system we have.

We agree on the mathematical level. and Logic is simply math. I don't want to have a symantical debate on this subject. if I say evolve to more advanced species I am talking about how evolution states that single celled organisms over time have resulted in the complex organisms that are present today. I don't pretend to have read all the books out there, but I have done a decent amount of research and I am not trying to proove one thing or another. but I do not see micro-mutations or fossils as evidence of the mechanics of evolution. fortunately this topic is much bigger than this blog and I've enjoyed the debate. I honestly rarely find believers in evolution that make a real effort in understanding the science of their belief system. Yes, just like its hard to find believers in god who make a real effort to understand the concepts of their own belief system. And I usually look for a good debate on the subject.

I think if we had more time and a better environment we could really find a lot more common ground. it gets difficult to have a good discussion with all the noise thrown in by disrespectful folks.

It might be weakening to an animal in an environment where food is very scarce and the altitude is very high. Muscle takes energy and oxygen to power, and having unnecessarily large muscles would seem to be metabolically wasteful in such an environment.

67STANG was talking about this earlier. Evolution is the cross section of the organism and the environment.

In modern science, the basic principle of finding out whether a theory is right or wrong is how good is it at predicting results. You have some input variables, observed results in nature and a theory. If that theory can transform those input variables into the observed results, it's probably right.

Now, this pose a problem with the evolution theory, since transforming the inputs to results takes a very long time and thus makes it hard for us to tell how accurate the theory is. However, the principles of the evolution theory has been used in different scenarios not involving spiecies and environment directly, but something that resembled it.

Since I'm a programmer, I can give you an example from my field. It's called genetic algorithm and is used to find and optimize ( the optimization being the most important factor, I'll explain later ) solutions to a given problem set. The solutions are the spiecies, the problem set is the environment. The problem set ( environment ) can be practically anything, but I'll work with an example of finding a way out of a maze given a starting point. The solutions are most commonly represented as strings of instructions, that perform some action in the environment and represent the genetic code of a solution ( spiecie ). The algorithm then creates a several hundreds, thousands ( or more or less ) entities from the initial, randomly generated, genetic code. It then "runs" them in the environment and observes how well they performed in finding and optimizing the solution. This is done by calculating some number through a fitness function, which represents survivability in the environment. It then reproduces the indivuals and throw in some random mutations of their genetic code. It really very closely models what the theory of evolution says, just in a different ( but very similar ) environment.

The funny thing is, that these algorithms work. By "work" I mean, that they are quite good at optimizing the solution to the given problem, which is exactly what the spiecies on earth do. They are optimizing their genetic code in other to have higher survivability ( the function in the example ). Another remarkable thing about the algorithm is, that you can change the problem set ( environment ) at any time and the once good spiecies will die out and new ones will emerge through mutations that are better at solving it. There are many more interesting things about this, but I'll point out just one more. The case of your two stomachs. These genetic codes often contain instructions, that lead whole populations of spieces into a dead end in the maze. However, it takes to randomly mutate just one instruction ( gene ) to make the spiecie turn left at some point before the dead end, which can make it get closer to exiting the maze. You may argue that the stomach is described by several genes. That is true, but these algorithms run for a few minutes, hours, maybe days, not 4 billion years and the number of entities in the nature is also much much higher. I think that is enought time for something remarkable to emerge ( like the spieces we have on the planet today, including us )

No matter what we believe, some things just can or can not be as far as we know. Science has this thing called action and reaction, so how do we get a "big bang" without that? Every engineer knows you can not get any type of boom without parts. So what are the big bang parts? Much more importantly, what was the first part(s)? However large are infinitely small the first person(s), place(s), thing(s), or idea(s) in existence was, how does that first get here and then become a second and third? In some way the first just was, or became? The second became or was created by the first? Whichever happened shows us exactly what we need to know. If the first existence alsways was, and was God, then everything makes since. Otherwise, if the first being(s) or thing(s) just came into existence somehow, and a second thing(s) was created by the first(s)?, and these new things made another thing? Well, we should see and understand what we know about TRUE science. Only the end product and ALMOST NOTHING, "through a glass, darkly" comes to mind. It is somehow OK for many people to believe that some form of magic exists, but not God? I’ve talked, emailed, posted and read for hours on representation theory, permutation theory, and other parts and versions of group theory that have lost some foothold because of new quantum theory. These theories are all expanded on other theories that came before, and almost as fast as we get a firm grasp on quantum theory there will be another theory behind it such as quantum field theory, (usually not long after holes are discovered in a former theory). Just like any other tool, we can always seek a greater tool, but still it is only a tool. How do we get a string theory, quantum theory, field theory, or any other thing or existence, without all of their needed parts already existing? If we go back far enough something(s) came from nothing, or all the required parts that form all things have always been. The problem is, it is MUCH harder to believe that ALL the required parts that form ALL things have always been in existence and/or ALL of those came from nothing, over believing that GOD WAS AND IS THE BEGINNING!. Yet people want to believe several beginnings over the One? We all have some amount of desire to understand everything, but basically can we? The world has an average human lifespan of around 66 years of age, and if we are lucky enough to make that age will we ask ourselves this simple question? Where, what, when, how, and why did everything start, and do I have any hope for a real answer? The only answer to this is: WE WILL NEVER KNOW UNLESS GOD TELLS US!.

It's not taught as if it is a fact. It's taught as a theory that explains a multitude of supporting facts, at least as many as those supporting relativity or quantum mechanics. By the way, relativity and quantum mechanics are also taught as theories that explain a set of observed facts.

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains observed facts. Creationism is a religious belief. Trying to compare them is not a debate, then, but rather a waste of time. There is no basis on which they can be compared. By all means, let's teach both. Evolution can be taught in science classes and creationism in religion classes.

If you don't see that Evolution is being pushed off as scientific fact, then you are willingly ignorant. BOTH are faith based. I'm proud to call mine faith. You are not. Having faith requires a lot of strength and willingness to give your self over to something more powerful than yourself.

If you can't have respect then how about just leave us alone then? I respect you even though I think you are wrong...

No, they are not both faith based. We can observe evolution and have tons of evidence to back it up, and it will keep on piling up.What we don't know is how it all started, and we might never know, but the default answer to that should not be "god did it". We need to prove it.

Leave you alone? When can we expect religious people to stop inserting their dogma into science? When can we let our guard down not fearing that creation mythology will have to be taught side by side with evolution in school? When will we have a true separation of church and state? When can gay people be allowed to marry? It is religion which interferes in almost any society...

quote: When can we expect religious people to stop inserting their dogma into science? When can we let our guard down not fearing that creation mythology will have to be taught side by side with evolution in school? When will we have a true separation of church and state? When can gay people be allowed to marry? It is religion which interferes in almost any society...

You remind me of when I was a teenager and "knew" everything.

It does amaze me how people think we are so advanced as a people to rule out God, because of all of the wonderful toys we have, most of which distract us as a society, and add absolutely nothing of importance to our lives. I am sure all of the evolutionists have studied Christianity like maybe reading John Calvin's Institutes before passing judgement. Or does it only work for me having to form an understanding of evolution? How about I raise my children without them having to be indoctrinated with the ape to man evolution?

Look up what was meant by the separation of church and state. Although you probably have, but choose to throw it out to convince the ignorant.

This nation was founded on Judeo Christian values whether you admit it or not. The founders of this country realized it, and we created a nation never seen on the planet and have reaped great rewards. Where are all of the successes of secular societies? I could mention the famous ones - Solviet Union, Nazism. No God there. Great Idea.

If I say prove it, it does not mean that I feel that it is disproven (which very hard thing to do). I cannot disprove Russell's teapot either, nor can I disprove fairies or lepricorns.

Neither do I claim to "know" everything. That is impossible.Ape to man? Here is the fact again. COMMON ANCESTORS. Repeat. COMMON ANCESTORS. If they don't like that fact they can ignore the science like millions of people already do. Maybe dirt is better, or being from a rib..

And think of where we could be heading.. cause we are changing, through evolution.

How about not taking advice from someone, God, who had to drown his own children (the flood) and create them sick and command them to be healed (original sin)? Plus all those diseases. Thanks god! Should I stone the kids if they're disobedient? No, I need to earn their trust, it shouldn't come automatically. Sometimes kids make good points, parents are not always competent and shouldn't always be parents at all.

Separation of church and state. Government stays out of religion and is not influenced by religion (by leaving it up to individuals to find their own pursuit of happiness).The first amendment is pretty clear on that.Which state sponsored religion should we have? Because as you might know..there are MANY of them. Do we vote on an yearly basis? No! Keep thy religion to thyself. Or bring up your kids religious too, that's your freedom...indoctrination is available for you, I cannot stop it. But do not ask, no demand, to give equal time to your dogma in say science classes or prayer and things like that. The founding fathers set to create a system in which one escapes religious persecution and not a system which justifies it. It didn't work in Europe at the time when millions fled state-sponsored religion. Secularism also makes sure that there can be many religions, which have to compete. Try to do that in the middle-east where Islam is the basis of many laws, there's no room for other religions, often not at all.

Judeo christian values? Which ones? Like slavery (yes it was justified through religion). Keeping women down (sure, can be done, still is in many parts of the world). The hating of gays, sure thing!

So should we sell our possessions and give it all to the poor? Jesus pretty much says that. Should we ignore it, or do you think we can still squeeze ourselves through the eye of the needle? Which ones do we pick and choose?

The only things which are law from the ten commandments are don't steal and don't kill. Wow, such difficult concept. As if we couldn't figure out that without religion. And the golden rule? Confusious said that years before Christianity was even hatched as an idea.

With non-religion communism does not follow. There is only one thing which is agreed among non-believers and that is the non-belief. I don't politically share my views with communists in general nor do I share a lot with libertarians like Penn Jillette.

"Where are all of the successes of secular societies?"Almost all modern democracies have this as a basis, this includes USA and Europe. It's way of guaranteeing personal liberties.In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814(this is not always true today, far from it, but it used to be, because they feared losing their monopoly on truth)

Nazism was not secularist, as they did some of the following: Gott mitt uns (look it up), banned books on evolution and books which mocked Christianity. Hitler's mein kampf has tons of religious motivations for anti-semitism and his feeling of ridiculous God-given self-importance on doing the lords work.

And btw, if your god is so great, why does the design allow for such defective people like Stalin and Hitler to exist?Second, since we know they existed, why didn't God stop them? Should be easy, just hit the "del" button or run them through some anti-virus. Here's a third thought.. what if God approved? Is it part of his plan like the end of days?

The questions of morality can be answered without any sort of religion and people like Stalin are mainly political problems, with the problem being, how do we keep some politicians from acquiring too much power? This is the heart of the problem, religious or not. And they setup the Stalinist regime in a way in which you have to praise and love the dear leader. This is not too different from religion. But at least with Stalin and Pol Pot and people like that you can escape the torment, if you die. Not so with God, because he can follow everyone, and will, if he is true, even after you have died.

Also, God can read people's minds, even while you're asleep. Not even Orwell could imagine such horrors in his futuristic dystopia.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growingthroughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on aparticular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to bea moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who dothey think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry Goldwater]

quote: So should we sell our possessions and give it all to the poor? Jesus pretty much says that. Should we ignore it, or do you think we can still squeeze ourselves through the eye of the needle? Which ones do we pick and choose?

christian values? Which ones? Like slavery (yes it was justified through religion).

You just lost any iota of credibility with that statement. You aren't grasping at straws are you?

quote: Keeping women down ... The hating of gays, sure thing!

The bible teaches that you should love everyone. So you are just misinformed or willingly ignorant of this issue.

quote: So should we sell our possessions and give it all to the poor? Jesus pretty much says that. Should we ignore it, or do you think we can still squeeze ourselves through the eye of the needle? Which ones do we pick and choose?

Again, you are completely in the wrong direction. I will explain it for you though. Jesus taught that you should treat your neighbor as you would be treated. But he also took mention several times that the lazy have no virtue, and you should not sacrifice your well being to help someone who does not want to even try and take care of themselves. And as for the "eye of a needle", it means that if you are a greedy and rich in money, but poor in heart and spirit, then you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Otherwise, you cannot take you money with you when you go, so your soul is your most prized and worthy possession.

quote: Nazism was not secularist

Again, more proof that you are an idiot.

quote: Second, since we know they existed, why didn't God stop them? Should be easy, just hit the "del" button or run them through some anti-virus. Here's a third thought..

He is a powerful and all knowing God, but still.. the whole free will thing... you gotta watch the movie Bruce Almighty dude, it explains everything. God is not a puppet master as you would like to think he is. It angers him to see people do evil things yes; but like i said earlier, this world is only a test of faith and fortitude. The next life is promised to be in all rights perfect and without sin and sadness.

As you mentioned earlier, this country was founded so that people could enjoy freedom of religion. I am enjoying my freedom. You seem to have such a problem with the idea of a creator that you must sling hate everywhere. Your concept of free speech is imposing on my freedom of religion. If you don't like it, then you can move to an unihabited island, because I am perfectly content with being a Christian SALT of the earth. I preserve and I irritate. You choose to live in society. Welcome to it. Here in society, you have to listen to others opinions, whether you want to or not. If you don't like it, then leave. I'm fine with staying here and being salty :D

"The bible teaches that you should love everyone. So you are just misinformed or willingly ignorant of this issue."

Women should keep quiet in churches, cannot be priests, the woman is unclean if she had had a boy child for 7 days.She's responsible for the apple story, shall for always experience pain for childbirth because of her sins, thou shalt not suffer witches to live etc.. have you even read the bible? Have you even read history? Seems not.

"Again, more proof that you are an idiot"Secularism means separation of church and state. Nazis did not have that, and they still haven't excommunicated Hitler.http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

"He is a powerful and all knowing God,"yeah, like when there's a natural disaster and people say, Jesus wept. What an useless thing to do for a deity. And he needs to rest? He's at best psychotic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg

"You choose to live in society. Welcome to it. Here in society, you have to listen to others opinions, whether you want to or not. "You're the one trying to tell me to shut up, one can tell that you wish for there to be blasphemy law, like they have now in Ireland. Your religion is ridiculous and your god if he exists is the worst mass murderer in the world. No Stalin or Hitler can torment anyone for an eternity, but your god does.

You don't even know your own mythology, you have a thin skin and you're a crybaby whenever one exposes the silliness of your religion. Salt? More like poison.

Tomorrow I'll go ask an expert about what mythology is. You are no expert. I am only a novice, but I'll say for the 100th time, Mythology has ALWAYS been fiction. It's based on life lessons and nature. Just because some idiots misunderstood what it's about doesn't mean that its a graveyard for religion.

quote: And think of where we could be heading.. cause we are changing, through evolution.

You aren't going anywhere tho, right?

quote: Like slavery (yes it was justified through religion). Keeping women down (sure, can be done, still is in many parts of the world). The hating of gays, sure thing!

Christians didn't invent slavery. Christians will not hate the sinner, but the sin.Ephesians 5:28 "In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

quote: So should we sell our possessions and give it all to the poor? Jesus pretty much says that. Should we ignore it, or do you think we can still squeeze ourselves through the eye of the needle? Which ones do we pick and choose?

Jesus said, "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches." Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things, and they were scoffing at Him And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God." ( Luke 16:13-15)

Hitler was a Christian? You really think so?

quote: And btw, if your god is so great, why does the design allow for such defective people like Stalin and Hitler to exist?

Your understanding of evolution far outways your knowledge of God.Instead of saying things that are just foolish, if you want to know the truth, here it is:

Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

"You aren't going anywhere tho, right?"My body adjusts to diseases so yes it is going somewhere, it is adjusting to God's all little evil innovations like diseases. Memory cells in my body make sure that I do not get sick of the same things once again.And I'm likely naturally immune to things like the black death because of my ancestors who survived the disease.

"Christians didn't invent slavery."Didn't claim that. But they practiced it for centuries as well as deadly colonialism, racism, intolerance against other faiths, two world wars which could not have happened without Christians, patriarchal hatred towards women, homosexuals etc..And Christians are still the one's today who are best at arming the entire world with weapons while at the same time preaching for democracy and peace.

"Christians will not hate the sinner, but the sin."History shows otherwise. That sounds like an euphemism.

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches."This goes against the

"Hitler was a Christian? You really think so?"Yes. But since I'm not into binary thinking I'll add that this does not make all Christians responsible for his acts."My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned me to fight against them" Adolf Hitler

“My conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."- Adolf Hitler

"Your understanding of evolution far outways your knowledge of God."Why just not answer it? Is it because there are no answer to many modern questions in the bible and that you cannot answer them? Had I been the creator I would have made damn sure to stop them somehow, even subtly would have stopped WWII (at least after I've witnessed the blood-spill of WWI). I would also have told people about hygiene in the bible, that alone would have saved millions of lives. I would also have added credibility to it by telling other (scientific) truths like later could have been verified. This would have added credibility to the bible.

And why is that I have to rely on a book that is not even written by god? If I go asks priests some questions, let's say 5 I'm likely to receive five different answers, especially if I ask more difficult questions. Why is the bible so easy to read just as you wish, why is there not a single denomination, you all have the same bible so shouldn't you come to the same conclusions? This is no way to handle important information. If I write a science study as badly as the bible I would fail in chemistry.

"Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. "Again, the bible is not enough as a source. I would need direct contact with any deity to believe in it.

And again, there are MANY, MANY different faiths, I don't see anything in particular with Christianity that would make it any more valid than other religions.

As long as they all lack evidence, and they all do, then I'll stay away from it. It's hard to imagine any deity in being so unsuccessful in spreading a one true faith.

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan

Hitler was manipulative. That's all. He used anti-semitism as a vehicle. He can say he is whatever religion he wants to be, but he did not bear the fruits of such.

quote: Why just not answer it? Is it because there are no answer to many modern questions in the bible and that you cannot answer them?

I did not go point to point, because I do not need to. I just addressed a few. All of the answers we NEED are in the Bible. Things that we WANT to know, we are finding for ourselves.

quote: And again, there are MANY, MANY different faiths, I don't see anything in particular with Christianity that would make it any more valid than other religions.

In reality there is only one. But is not what people want to hear, it is divisive, and just makes people defensive. We all have a built in knowledge of God, and some of us such as Sagan, put themselves on a pedestal by saying that they, in their few moments on Earth have grown enough to make such a determination such as

quote: It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men

The other gods we invent are because of our initial knowledge of a creator. Notice how people are comfortable with seeing a order in nature, 'Mother Nature'. People are comfortable referring to such a thing, and others will claim they are spiritual, as long as they do not have to acknowledge the existence of our true God. Hubris.

Anti-semitism which btw has been a christian tradition after all, he continued it.

"All of the answers we NEED are in the Bible. "Clearly not.

No, there clearly is not only one faith. Don't be so solipsistic. It's not without reasons that followers of Christ have killed followers of other religions and the other way around.

Carl Sagan was an agnostic, and his point of view about us dreaming up Gods can be backed up, because we as an inventive race have invented thousands and thousands of different deities. Including yours (Atheism is usually going one step further in the number of Gods)

Spiritual is kind of a light version of religion, or when it is more personal. It's sometimes an euphemism and sometimes said to make the point that no religion is the answer for me but I'm still spiritual, searching for something or whatever. It's not hubris it's about honesty to one's own beliefs.

That's because it's hard to read. There are texts that can help you understand it better. It is not like any other "book". You can't just read it and write a book report on it. While it definitely raises questions, it does provide answers. Until I started studying the bible and asking questions, I really didn't know anything. Not that I know a lot now, But I am working on it.

Christians are expected by law (in cases of public schooling) to learn evolution. Evolutionists however, never read the bible. Maybe a handful actually do, but I doubt very seriously any one of them actually reads it with any heartfelt attempt.

And btw, you can be an evolutionist and a believer, there are tons of them.Second, most non-believers have been believers previously in their lives. And thirdly you cannot live without being exposed to the bible constantly...

Since these (only) thirteen prophecies (of more than 2000) cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)—that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

Sorry, science isn't about faith. It's about reality, no matter what is believed. It's about the scientific method;

quote: To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

People like you that want to pretend faith alone make you strong, are in reality weak. As weak as people that ONLY have the scientific method.

True strength in humanity comes from people that have learnt how to take them both into their philosophy to find actual truths in this existence. Science and religions are very complimentary ONLY if you are not a fool.

"Yet you believe that rain fell on rocks for billions of years and lightning struck the soup sea and created life?"

The difference here is we've seen lightning strike the "soup sea" and create organic chemicals. We've also seen organic chemicals self-assemble into protocells. And we've seen unicellular life evolve into more complex forms.

The protocell->unicell link is one we haven't experimentally verified yet. But, as Sagan says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote: we've seen lightning strike the "soup sea" and create organic chemicals. We've also seen organic chemicals self-assemble into protocells.

What we have NOT seen is living material come from non-living material. Big leap you make there. A leap of faith I would say; because it takes faith to believe that non living matter turns to living matter. We have not replicated, viewed, or even thought of good ways that this could happen.

quote: But, as Sagan says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why can't God be arranged in that same thinking for you? (I believe there is plenty of evidence) What's your logic behind that one?

"What we have NOT seen is living material come from non-living material."

Depends on your definition of life. Protocells have limited behavior and reproductive capabilities. By some definitions of life, they're more alive than a virus is (which can't reproduce on its own).

Admittedly we can't make people out of water and dust yet. But given we've only had a few decades to work on the problem, whereas nature had a few billion years, I think the end result is quite obvious.

"Why can't God be arranged in that same thinking for you?"

Is logic really that complex for you? Evolution explains countless millions of various facts. Hypothesizing a god doesn't explain anything... it doesn't even explain the origin of life itself. Either your god is alive (in which case what first created that life) or else he isn't (in which case something inanimate produced life, which is what you claim is impossible about evolution).

Actually I recently had a discussion with a coworker who is religious and has done a lot of research into evolution. Here is a summary of what he said.

Nothing in the bible has been disproven. Ever. There is not a single thing in it that has been proven false.

The theory of evolution though is just that, a theory. There is no direct evidence of the progression of human life evolving. All the drawings of different stages of man are just that, drawings. Most of them are artists renderings of what they believe. The actual "skeleton" they drew the picture off is nothing more than a skull and a few other bones. So a few bones to come up with the appearance of an entire being? Sorry no. And those skulls could have come from other species similar to man.

Finally, when asked if evolution is real, why can't we see it today, they say because it takes too long. Then when asked why haven't we found a direct linkage of the evolution of man, why the large leaps in different appearances, they say because it happens really fast. So which is it?

End his thoughts.

Even here the word skeleton is used. Well I just see a skull. Where is the picture of the rest of the bones? What did they actually find? An entire skeleton? A skull? A skull and some bones?

Now I'm not trying to convince anyone either way. But all these people who think they're so smart are using the same type of science that says global warming is real to say they've proved evolution. They have a very small amount of facts and have drawn extremely large conclusions.

Is the idea that we just appeared out of nowhere hard to believe? Of course. But then so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed.

My coworker also made the good point that scientists say that the natural order of things at the molecular level leads to chaos. So how then did everything become so ordered in order for the human body to evolve to where it is today?

Again. Draw your own conclusions. But the fact remains that creationism remains just as valid a theory today as evolution. Your faith, or lack thereof, will guide you. I am not a very religious person. And tend to try no to focus on where we came from. I think the here and now and understanding the world as it is today is more important. But as far as teaching kids in school, both sides of the coin need to be taught. And as much as liberals hate the idea, people need to be allowed to make their own choices. Especially when it comes to what they believe. This nonstop assault on the Christian and Judaic faith is pathetic.

Especially here in America, a nation formed off the basis of Christianity (whether you like it or not).

Countless things have. Many have been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

"So a few bones to come up with the appearance of an entire being?"

Yes. A good forensic scientist today can take a skull and draw the original face so well you'd recogize the person. You're really grasping at straws here.

"when asked if evolution is real, why can't we see it today, they say because it takes too long."

Err, we see evolution constantly. Every year new cold viruses evolve, ones that never existed before. 98% of the subspecies of dogs today didn't exist 200 years ago -- they were all created by breeders selectively forcing specific traits...natural selection at high speed.

Further, your entire premise is flawed. "Fast" in geologic time is anything less than a million years. Having a fossil preserved is a very rare event. How many of the six billion people alive today do you think are going to wind up fossils, rather than just decaying away into dust?

"so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed."

Seriously, I suggest you learn a little about how evolution really works. Try "The Blind Watchmaker" for an excellent example of why your "luck" fallacy is just that.

Saying that doesn't prove anything does it. Do you believe that statement somehow makes a valid point. Saying one theory doesn't make the belief you have in another theory any more valid. You might have well said "the sky is blue, want to argue with that one too?" for all the good its done you.

quote: Yes. A good forensic scientist today can take a skull and draw the original face so well you'd recogize the person. You're really grasping at straws here.

No he isn't. You are. His point was that you have not found the rest of the "skeleton". Can your amazing forensic scientist perform miracles now? Seems like you are the one practicing faith yet claiming to be a scientist. Well actually, you're not a scientist really are you, as we will discover rather soon. In fact, you just like people to think you are because you know a "little" bit of knowledge in that area. In fact your are choosing the facts that fit your argument, making huge leaps of faith and expecting people to swallow it as fact and ignoring questions and points entirely because you either don't have the mental capacity to understand and address those points or you know you don't have a cats chance in hell of being able to address them because you know full well the facts but its just they don't suit your argument, which is it? Go get your "forensic scientist", by all accounts if I give him a single back molar he will be able to create the appearance of the person whose tooth that was. Oh wait, he can't, so tell us exactly how we get to see drawings of "ape men" when only fragments are available.

quote: Err, we see evolution constantly. Every year new cold viruses evolve, ones that never existed before. 98% of the subspecies of dogs today didn't exist 200 years ago -- they were all created by breeders selectively forcing specific traits...natural selection at high speed.

The varying breeds of dogs is not "evolution", its is genetic manipulation within the defining range of that species. Basically stressing the boundaries of genetic material that makes up "dog". And by linking animal husbandry with evolution you have revealed quite tellingly that you're actually an amateur in this field, which is understandable, I imagine the number of geneticists or paleontologists who visit this site to be negligible. I certainly don't claim to be either, or an expert, but I am not the one making howling elementary errors or claims whilst implying I am an expert.

And I think you should go eat your own dog food, "Seriously, I suggest you learn a little about how evolution really works"

quote: The varying breeds of dogs is not "evolution", its is genetic manipulation within the defining range of that species.

Well, dog breeding is not a direct genetic manipulation. We can say that the man changes the environment of the dog in a way. What I mean is, that he denies reproduction to some dogs that do not seem to posses the quality he's looking for. In effect "killing" them, since their genetic code is not evolving further in the next generation. Which is exactly what happens when organism dies in natural environment due to not being fit to survive. It's genetic branch ceases to exist. This is how the evolution should work and thus the argument with dog breeding is a valid one.

"his point was that you have not found the rest of the "skeleton". Can your amazing forensic scientist perform miracles now? Seems like you are the one practicing faith"

I see the idiots are out in force today. They found more than the skull:

quote: Australopithecus sediba is possibly the most important found to date and the site has produced arguably the most notable assemblage of early human ancestors ever found, including the most complete skeletons of early hominids ever discovered and the most complete remains of any hominid dating to around two million years ago...

Do they find every single bone in every find? No. Does that mean that, because you have the left femur and not the right, that the right arm might possibly not look the same, and might instead be a 25 foot long wing, or perhaps a slimy tentacle?

You people are beneath contempt. You have at least the rudiments of a brain. Try using it some time.

quote: Do they find every single bone in every find? No. Does that mean that, because you have the left femur and not the right, that the right arm might possibly not look the same, and might instead be a 25 foot long wing, or perhaps a slimy tentacle?

Uhhh we HAVE seen claims like this before though, that's his point.

For instance "Lucy", heralded as a missing link to man. Now most scientist agree she was just a 3 foot tall chimp. A "neanderthal man" was found in the early 1900's in France, 50 years later it was determined our "cave man" was just an old man who suffered from arthritis. A tooth from an extinct pig was found, and from that an entire reconstructed early man was rendered from this one tooth. Before they even determined what the tooth came from. The "Piltdown man" that was put together from a single discovered jawbone, then the jawbone turned out to just be a bone from a modern ape. And let's not forget the Peking Man, which Chinese scientist claim is 500,000 years old, but has entirely vanished since.

No scientists worth their salt think Lucy is a chimp. Either you have been lied to, or you are lying. Those are the only 2 options here. Hate to be that blunt, but there it is.

I have personally examined cast replicas of Lucy's skull and pelvis along side modern man and chimp versions and I can tell you while all three share gross similarities, Lucy's is almost exactly between the 2 in morphology. Slightly more human looking than chimp, but not by a whole heck of a lot.

You expect me to view your opinion as somehow enlightened when you can't even read that all those things I said are another's opinion?

Yes I know we see evidence of evolution in micro organisms today.

But I'll address a few things you said.

1) Never the less, gravity is still a theory. That it hasn't been disproven doesn't change that.

2) Yes you can draw a face. That does not mean you can draw an entire body. If you know what my face looks like you do not know how long my arms, legs, and torso are, how erect I walk, and how much I weigh.

3) Cross-breeding dogs is no more evolution than a black and a white person having a child.

quote: 3) Cross-breeding dogs is no more evolution than a black and a white person having a child.

Yes, black and white person having a child is an evolution. Your parents having you is an evolution. The fact that you did not ( supposedly ;) ) turn out to have some remarkably different properties than the rest of the mankind does not mean it was not a process of evolution.

You anti-science types shoot off your mouth with this, then sit back with a smug expression, believing you've said something profound. You haven't. Gravity and evolution are "just" theories yes. In science, no theory ever becomes law.

However, gravity and evolution are two of the most well-confirmed theories ever conceived. They have made so many predictions which have been confirmed by actual observation that -- and this is the important part, so read carefully -- that if they're ever 'replaced', it will be with a theory so similar that, to laymen here on earth, you'll never notice any difference.

Take for instance, Newtonian mechanics. We now know it is technically "wrong". But its still used by all of us here on earth daily. If we're walking 5mph and we throw a baseball 20mph in front of us, we expect its speed to be 25 mph -- and it is, as close as we can measure it. If we measure an 8x11 piece of paper at rest, we don't expect it to be an entirely different size when its moving in a car or an airplane.

The same thing is true for evolution. In fact, Darwin's original theory has already been "replaced" many times by variations so minor, that for all intents and purposes, its still the exact same theory. And even the theory of gravity is under attack by theories such as MOND...but if any of those alternatives are ever accepted, the same equations we've used for centuries for gravity are still going to be correct here in the solar system.

quote: You anti-science types shoot off your mouth with this, then sit back with a smug expression, believing you've said something profound.

Oh look, another person claiming that we don't believe in science. We do. Just GOOD science. Science that is by definition truly science. Not faith based dying theories. The only difference between you and me friend is that you call yours science and I call mine religious faith in God. I love good science. However I DO NOT like smug arrogant assholes like you that walk around pretending to be high and mighty. Grow up.

quote: 2 Peter 2:5

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers , walking after their own lusts ,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

"Yes you can draw a face. That does not mean you can draw an entire body"

Yes it does Sparky. When you have the bones of the torso, arms, legs, pelvis -- you can draw the entire body. But thanks for playing.

"Cross-breeding dogs is not evolution"

Of course it is...and the effects are remarkably fast. Starting from animals that were almost indistinguishable from wolves just a couple hundred years ago, we've created an enormous variety of shapes, sizes, colors, temperaments, intelligence and other characteristics. If you don't think that's evolution, your own cranial capacity is sadly suspect.

Do you have any idea how much humans have ALREADY used evolution to benefit our lives? A few hundred years ago, the productivity of grains like wheat was about 1/5 what it is today. Chickens laid one tiny egg a week, rather than one large one a day. Cows, pigs, and poultry had far lessmeat on their bones. We've evolved them for characteristics we want.

quote: Porkpie you are wasting your time, you are trying to debate with people who believe in magic and you cannot debate magic because it can explain anything.

He's wasting time because he's being insulting, contemptuous, mean spirited and stubborn. Take it from me, that's not a good way to get others to listen to you.

The only rational conclusion to all this is that, despite what both sides claim, nobody knows. Sorry, we don't. Evolution is the most RATIONAL explanation based on what meager understanding the human race has of these things in the short time we have been around. But the simple fact is, nobody owns a time machine.

So to me, both sides are really a religion. Both sides believe in something with all their heart that cannot be proven, verified, or observed during the time period when it was relevant to the discussion.

Believing all life on Earth started from a primordial puddle of goop takes just as much faith as believing there is a man in the sky or whatever who put the goop there in the first place.

But in the end, who cares ? Porkie and others like him just waste their time, come off like a militant jackass, and turn everyone else off entirely.

quote: Nothing in the bible has been disproven. Ever. There is not a single thing in it that has been proven false.

And it never will, at that.

This because it's based on dogma and faith rather than observation and evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of a deity through the scientific method. Nor can you prove the existence of such an entity through the scientific method either.

Because there's nothing to observe, interact with or formulate a hypothesis from. It's all taken on faith which just isn't good enough a basis for scientific fact.

Obviously there are some things in the bible that can be supported, many of the historical renderings and persons have evidence supporting their existence and significance. The religion itself however, as well as the supernatural entity behind it, cannot claim the same.

quote: Is the idea that we just appeared out of nowhere hard to believe? Of course. But then so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed.

It's just a theory, though one based on observation and supporting evidence. It might not be correct but at the current time it's the best, most plausible explanation. Which is all science really is.

It's not even particularly hard to understand once you grasp the concept of an, almost, infinity universe. It's simple statistics.

quote: My coworker also made the good point that scientists say that the natural order of things at the molecular level leads to chaos.

He left out the most important bit, the laws of entropy and enthalpy only apply in a closed system. Which the earth, and the universe, isn't.

quote: But the fact remains that creationism remains just as valid a theory today as evolution.

No, it really isn't.

The difference between creationism and evolution is the complete lack of observable fact or supporting evidence of the former. Creationism is just a front for contemporary religious beliefs, trying to wrap the judeo-christian myth of creation in a bubble of pseudo-science to give it an air of legitimacy in an increasingly secular society.

I'm not saying that creationism cannot explain the creation of the universe, world or man mind you. I'm just saying that until such a time that observations and supporting evidence can give the idea legitimacy according to scientific principles it cannot be regarded in the same light as evolution.

There's even a response to creationism and intelligent design in general that highlights the fallacies of the idea, I recommend you google pastafarianism and check it out.

Pascal's wager? He only considered the probability of Christianity being true while ignoring tons of other possible deities.

Bertrand Russell counted to about 10.000 deities, should we convert to them all? Just in case?

It is btw, hard to imagine any deity (or deities) requiring from his own creation a believe in him without actually providing the evidence. And so far he has proven to be completely lacking in competence on spreading a one true faith, as there are many different God fan clubs, and the all cannot be right but they could all be incorrect.

Whatever you see is not hard evidence, my guess is that what you are experiencing is things like the argument of beauty, argument from personal experiences etc. (but yeah so what, many people of different faith and even non-faith go through similar things). It's not empirical evidence.

And if there is a God then I don't think he treats his creation all too well. It could be so easy to make things better. Would you for instance invent diseases?Or maybe they are are a bi-product of creation, but wouldn't it then be moral to make bad things like that disappear? If a politician had the same power as God, and choose not to, then how would we view him or her? Wouldn't we be outraged?

God is a bit weird, you're supposed to believe him, worship him and even love him..but..there's another but, you're also supposed to simultaneously fear him, his wrath, his ability send you to hell to suffer till the end of times.

"Go ahead and keep spreading your hate to everyone; It will catch back up to you one day, I promise. "What hate? Where's the hate? And don't worry Randall.. the flying spaghetti monster shall judge you too. I've heard that he boils unbelievers for an eternity in spaghetti sauce. Better convert..

quote: Would you for instance invent diseases? Or maybe they are are a bi-product of creation, but wouldn't it then be moral to make bad things like that disappear?

Sin of man brought death into the world. We have the option to sin because of something called free will.

quote: If a politician had the same power as God, and choose not to, then how would we view him or her? Wouldn't we be outraged?

This life is only a test of faith and love. If you can't admit to a higher power and a creator, then you should be ready for whatever punishment is brought. Why is it so hard to believe in a higher power and creator? I have come to accept that such a ordered universe is not a result of random events. Just look at the flagella motor; why is it so hard believe that someone created that? Look at how many things in nature have the same DESIGNS.

quote: the flying spaghetti monster shall judge you too. I've heard that he boils unbelievers for an eternity in spaghetti sauce.

You have no idea what arrogance and hate I am talking about? Just drop the whole subject if you are going to be an asshole.

quote: Sin of man brought death into the world. We have the option to sin because of something called free will.

Who invented sin? Sorry, but your right back the source once again.

quote: This life is only a test of faith and love. If you can't admit to a higher power and a creator, then you should be ready for whatever punishment is brought. Why is it so hard to believe in a higher power and creator? I have come to accept that such a ordered universe is not a result of random events. Just look at the flagella motor; why is it so hard believe that someone created that? Look at how many things in nature have the same DESIGNS.

I can admit, but I would need evidence. Why is it so hard to believe in Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Thor etc.. why are you a Christian?If it is design, then it is unnecessarily complex for a deity (who needs to rest for heavens sake if you pardon the pun) and a lot of it is BAD design:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

quote: You have no idea what arrogance and hate I am talking about? Just drop the whole subject if you are going to be an asshole.

You're in no position to try to lecture me on net-etiquette or anything on this matter. You started with the "you'll regret it" nonsense, as if you had any of that information actually available. So I turned your argument right back at you...

And no, I will not be silent about religion. It has enjoyed enough free rides, undeservedly so.

Mythology is where most Gods go to die, Christianity and other religions belong in the same category.

Again I ask, how can you be so sure that you are correct and while all other faiths are wrong? Is it not possible that you were thought your particular religion since childbirth and that you have never really been allowed to question it?

I'm not intolerant against faith, but I reserve my right to debate it (especially on public forum such as this) pretty much any way I wish. I don't think faith is a virtue nor do think religion deserves any sort of special protection against critical analysis, mockery, humor etc..

If I wanted to spread hate, then I'd pick up a "holy" book and call people sinners (even thou they were not part of sort of original sin), against homosexuals, women, other faiths etc..

quote: If I wanted to spread hate, then I'd pick up a "holy" book and call people sinners (even thou they were not part of sort of original sin), against homosexuals, women, other faiths etc..

God said not to cast judgment. However, that does not mean we cant speak out against immoral behavior. We are instructed to be the salt of the earth (salt preserves and irritates). I am both preserving the word and irritating you about it, so I guess I'm doing my job! Christians that speak out against immoral behavior have a right just like everyone else does. If you don't want to listen then leave.

quote: Mythology is where most Gods go to die, Christianity and other religions belong in the same category.

You are completely ignorant of the history of Mythology. You should pick up a book about classical Greek mythology. Maybe you will learn that Hesiod, Homer, and other great writers were intent on writing FICTION. I'll say again, they wrote FICTION. They knew it was fiction. The audience knew it was fiction. I guess you just opened your mouth wide enough to prove to everyone that you are an idiot.

To me the bible is a work of fiction. Written by authors who tried to explain it all in a time of ignorance and they couldn't even agree among themselves. Also, committees have been involved to decide what should be included in the book. Popes have decided that "this is now dogma" only to remove it later. They have been wrong on so many parts that it is easy to lose count. This is no way a work of a competent deity. You don't leave the job to humans who are 1) rarely objective 2) have poor memory 3) often accept theories, even conspiracy theories instead of simply honestly saying "I don't know" 4) were largely illiterate etc..

Had they started to write it today it would've looked completely different.

Most gods that humans have ever believed in are now considered mythology, and not as true. And in the end that might happen to your god as well, just joining one of the many in the group of dead Gods because people stopped believing in them. We don't need faith.

quote: Had they started to write it today it would've looked completely different.

Evidently you have absolutely not a clue about ancient culture. People from over 2000 years ago were VERY smart. Just as much so as people of today. We have gained more "collective" knowledge over the years yes. But to draw from the same old tired talking point about ancient men being stupid is beyond bliss. You are an ignorant fool.

quote: Most gods that humans have ever believed in are now considered mythology, and not as true. And in the end that might happen to your god as well, just joining one of the many in the group of dead Gods because people stopped believing in them.

How many times do I have to tell you that no-one believed that mythology was real? Even back when it was invented, mythology was fiction based on life lessons and fairy tales; aka our modern day Disney channel

quote: To me the bible is a work of fiction. Written by authors who tried to explain it all in a time of ignorance and they couldn't even agree among themselves.

And to literary scholars as well. The Old Testament is a collection of Mesopotamian folk lore. Genesis contains multiple creation stories, if you read it closely and actually note the inconsistencies, which many Christians do not. Furthermore, there are many, MANY cases in which 'God' is portrayed as having humanlike imperfections. And, both testaments were compiled many years after the deaths of all the people involved in their contained stories -- in other words, things happened, then everyone forgot, time passed, then it was published and people remembered. Folk lore by definition.

If I invent a robot, build it and sell it to people. And a large number of them start to act badly, killing, stealing, murdering, raping etc..

Does the fault lie with the robot (which in reality, like humans will not have anything which could be called a true free will) or the manufacturer?

Nobody alive today had a say in whatever Adam and Eve might or might not have done. We have zero responsibility for their actions (which btw came naturally). A logical more probably God who's almighty could instead gone back to the drawing board and perfected humans. Or gone back in time and removed that tree...

If you are curious, I would look into the free will thing. Do we really have free will? Are we not dead in our sins? Are we not a slave to them? It may seem a simple answer, but see what you come up with.

Theodicy is only a problem for certain types of theists.Most religions have some explanation for evil. In Christianity evil is part of the framework for salvation, a necessary condition for human good as we know it.

The free will school of course has a different explanation... namely free will, but it's weak, like the concept of free will. But you don't need this supposed explanation.

What I don't get is, why do these religious guys give god so little credit? Why would they assume he had to craft every organism himself from scratch, rather than create a system as elegant and clever as evolution to do the work for him?

There isnt even any "hard science" that explains the evolution of the flagellum motor.

Not true. There is ample evidence that it has evolved from the bacterial Type III Secretion System. Its essentially a hollow harpoon type of bacterial appendage that can pierce another cell and then be used to pump proteins and other chemicals into the host, making it easier prey, or more susceptible to parasitic attack. Its made up of 25 proteins... all of which are found in the flagellum, and all playing a similar, though not exactly always identical role.

Just be patient - you'll wake up dead someday and know whether those creationists posing as informed people were right or not. Unless, of course, nothing follows life on earth which is the best you can hope for since it appears you intend to reject the idea of a Creator. Romans 6:23

Spew your fear elsewhere. I'm a Christian yet, like millions of others, have no trouble thinking that evolution is part of God's creation. Do you also think that the entire cosmos revolves around the Earth?

I could care less about the literal interpretation of creation. It also wouldn't bother me at all to find out that Jesus walking on water was exaggerated or even if it never happened. These things don't bear any meaning to the message and teachings about how we ought to treat ourselves and the people we share creation with.

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one - maybe you are, maybe you aren't. For being a Christian it appears you have strong "take it or leave it" attitude towards the content of the Bible. If the Bible is God's Word I doubt He cares for that position. There is nothing wrong with fear when there is something to be feared. Matthew 10:28

There has been plenty of interaction including creation itself which the "invisible being" has said makes His existence self-evident. Romans 1:20

Another interaction is contained in your parting words "Love in Christ". The "invisible being" took on flesh to provide that interaction that you don't think exists. Is that true? One thing is certain whatever you or I choose to believe won't change reality -- choose wisely.

I don't know any clever, sarcastic way to suggest that "Faith", in the sense of believing something without evidence, isn't something to be put on like a Sunday suit.

When someone gives trust, but loses his trust, then clings to hope, until hope is torn away, and then maintains faith, without any social, rational, or emotional support, that's certainly a miracle of devotion.

However, that might also describe someone who persists in just and charitable behavior without hope of reward in Heaven or on Earth. Not just the person who rejects the confident theories of mainstream paleontology, geology, and astronomy as if they were hubris.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is a point to life. We are here for a reason. If not, then why do we distinguish between good and evil? Why do we cry? Why do we have emotions? After all, it would just be easier to roam the earth void of emotions, wear no clothes, and reproduce just like ever other animal.

Why are we the only intelligent beings on earth? You mean to tell me after supposed billions of years only ONE species made it to intelligence?

One major difference between you and me is that I understand that not all things can be or will be explained right now. I don't have to know absolutely EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. That's called arrogance. We know nothing. We will always know next to nothing. Want me to prove it? Try to think of what a new color looks like... Hurt your brain? That's because we are not all knowing...

Because its an idiotic, irrelevant, off topic point. It addresses none of the points an "evolutionist" cares about, at least as far as evolution goes, its flawed in its stance from the start about assuming scientists think they know all the answers, and its really a topic for a philosophy class.

That being said. The answer to your question is that all those traits have evolved because they have improved our fitness as a species, improving both our individual and collective odds of survival and reproduction. Thats why.

We are not the only intelligent creatures on the planet. Chimps have been observed using tools in nature for hunting and gathering food. Vampire bats show altruism by regurgitating blood to unrelated bats who are close to starving that live in the same shelter as them. Dolphins are highly intelligent, both individually and as a group. Elephants as well. I could go on for a long time. You are not quite as special as you think, and the world is not as small as you believe.

Since you are too stupid to understand what level of intelligence I am talking about, I guess I will have to explain. Which one of those listed are even close to our capacity for logic and reason? I'm talking about Sentient, self aware beings that have a developed language and society. A monkey using a stick to dig for ants is not what I'm talking about, and you know it. You are just trying to insult my intelligence.

You have not answered a single question, nor have you even come up with a semi-logical thought. Pick apart every single question and respond to it. Passing the buck to the philosophy group isn't going to cut it.

I'll never understand how a bunch of guys can sit in a room and look at pile of bones and say "ah ha! they used to move like this and eat that and lived in herds!"

How do you get THAT from a bunch of bones? How do you know social structure and living environment if you have never physically observed it in action? There is a reason scientists go out and research wildlife in the field instead of just looking at remains.

We have been force fed all that crap during public school and even college. So we know what they derive from a couple of teeth and half a skull. Go watch national geographic about evolution. They have entire shows about the behaviors, emotions, and EVEN LANGUAGE of man/apes LOL. You are an idiot.

Ever seen the countless reconstructions of what was though to be early man, but it turned out to be the grade site of a pig or other recently dead animal? I have, and it was pathetic and the complete opposite of true science.

quote: at least the books are re-written, corrected as new data come in.

I can't pinpoint which exact ones right now, but I know for fact that 2010 school textbooks have been printed with information on evolution "evidence" that was proven to be a hoax. The data is corrected huh? Just like now all of a sudden Pluto isn't considered a planet... HAHA some of the scientist out there are getting to be like Hollywood these days.. they have to make a stir when too many people lose interest because they are tired of the same old BS.

quote: The bible will always be the same..outdated.

The same? Yes indeed! Outdated? No way... It's right on track, you should read how it ends though before that times comes my friend.

I don't have access to that school book so I really can't comment, but you'll have to excuse for not taking your word on it since you don't even seem to understand evolution.

Pluto. Definition changed. Oh wow, the horror:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2R-wolOnEcBut you should be used to that since whatever you folks pick and choose from the bible changes with the time. As the pope for instance recently said that there is now no more limbo.And he has added seven new sins..The moral zeitgeist moves and the Christian of today doesn't hold a lot of the same viewpoints as a Christian did say two hundred years ago.

When the religious loses the war against gay marriage it will take some time but it will no longer be battled by Christians because it will mostly be accepted since it clearly doesn't disintegrate societies (example: see Massachusetts)but there will be other things which for them to unite and in unison hate about. Like Harry Potter:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YfJZxAai9w

"people lose interest because they are tired of the same old BS." Same old yet changing? It is exactly how science should work, as new data come in we change the books. The fact that it changes is what makes it interesting, as there is so much we still don't know.

"The same? Yes indeed! Outdated? No way... It's right on track, you should read how it ends though before that times comes my friend. "End of times? Again? How tiring, talk about a prediction which never happens. When Jesus said "brb", "some Christians in the first century believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime, because Jesus had said to his followers to be alert or be ready at all times."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_times

It's a quick way to refer people to information, the original sources are usually there, just click the links. Or when it comes to slavery, you can pick up the bible for sources on where it is endorsed or pick up a history book on how the religious where the ones supporting it in the first place and how often those who where against slavery did it because they were non-conformist of popularly supported ideas.

Is a Godless world such a horrific idea? What if this is all you get, no afterlife or anything? Or the idea that your parents (you're statistically likely to have the same faith as your parents, talk about free will) and society has been spending a lot of energy on telling you things as true even though they can not possibly back it up with any sort of evidence.

The problem with your arguments is that you try to bring magic into the realm of science. You come unarmed and had you written scientific papers based on your beliefs you'd likely be laughed at, you're career might have come to an quick end.

You mean a world without any obligation to morals and values? Sure, that's a great idea!

quote: The problem with your arguments is that you try to bring magic into the realm of science. You come unarmed and had you written scientific papers based on your beliefs you'd likely be laughed at, you're career might have come to an quick end.

That's exactly whats wrong with your type. You have faith in science, and treat it as your God. SCIENCE IS YOUR GOD and reason for living. You have nothing to live for, so you turn to being the asshole of society. You will never in your lifetime on earth admit that, but we all know its true.

You talk about science like it is unfailing truth (which its not, its the best guess opinion of SOME, not all people); and you will likely die right along with that belief.

You think you need to have an answer and evidence for every single thing.

You can't stand the thought of submitting to authority, because you don't want to be told what is right and wrong

With or without god there are morals and values.We can observe moral values in animals and young kids before they are capable of being taught. A lot of it coded into the DNA, and if it weren't then we wouldn't have gotten this far in the fist place.

I do submit to authority, but nothing which I cannot see or hear...things which kind of help with the credibility.

If I'm in a building that is on fire and a fireman says "escape through that route" I'm very likely to trust his opinion because he is trained in such things.

But you see, it is not your God that is demanding you to do this and that. OTHER people are, no god has ever spoken to you directly. If it actually happens, then you oughta listen (but it may be a sign of mental illness like the Jerusalem syndrome). I bet that since childbirth you have been indoctrinated in your faith which you know hold so strongly that even if evidence shows you otherwise you lean towards pseudoscience so that the facts fit with your fiction. Why bother with the mind-juggle? Why complicate things?

What if you had been born in the middle-east? You'd likely be a Muslim instead. Asia? Hindu or Buddhist. Or what if you were born 10.000 years ago, you wouldn't even KNOW about modern religions because they didn't even exist at the time. Would you then not develop your own rules laws and morality? Certainly after quite a bit of trial and error...after a while even morality does evolve. As it does as a whole for the so called moral zeitgeist.

You don't have access to any sort of special information that is not available for me who is a non-believer. Most non-believers used to be believers but gradually find things which are either hard to prove or doesn't fit in with reality, like the suspension of natural-laws or the improbability of living for hundreds of years to gather two of every animal:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtiyefHCe4

People in Asia get along just fine without your Jesus and your God, they never needed it.

Again I'd like to ask. Why is that all other religions are wrong and yours is not?

Just an FYI, humans learn how to lie as children . We are not born with morals you dimwit.

quote: I bet that since childbirth you have been indoctrinated in your faith which you know hold so strongly that even if evidence shows you otherwise you lean towards pseudoscience so that the facts fit with your fiction.

I'm getting really tired of you assuming that you know one single thing about my life.

It's astounding how much you will go out of your way to make people believe in nothing. All hail the power of .... nothing.... Atheists have got to be the dumbest group on planet earth. If you are wrong about it, you are in deep s***; If I am wrong, then I have nothing to worry about because there is no point to life anyway. You are so superficial that you can't stand the thought of an afterlife.

"Who's to decide that Hitlers morals were wrong?"Other people, who A) do not wish to go to war B) the victimsC) because we do not tend to like being told what to do

Your problem is that the bible gives mandate to genocide, God even demands this from his followers.

"?.... HAHAHAHA Did you get that from PETA Daily?"They work often in groups. That requires rules to follow after otherwise the group would quickly be destroyed.Monkeys for instance can give others favors, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

"Just an FYI, humans learn how to lie as children . We are not born with morals you dimwit."Yes we are, but what is coded into us is not enough. Pick up books about psychology and read. There are tons of studies.More namecalling, wow, you have so many stones.

"I'm getting really tired of you assuming that you know one single thing about my life."I bet..is not the same as I KNOW, but of course your reading comprehension is not the best...and you could fill in the details. So I ask you, is it not probable that had you been born in the middle-east that you would have been a Muslim instead and that your holy book would have been the Koran instead? Is it not probable?

Ah, here's that dumb argument from Pascal again, which you don't seem to understand either.

What if a god exists, but he/she/it/they is angered by anyone with the presumption to pray to them or worship them? The "free bet" fallacy assumes that only a single interpretation of a single religion is valid, when in reality there are countless of possible religions, and believing in the wrong one might actually increase your punishment in some hypothetical afterlife.And it could be that even if you somehow made the bet on the right god you could still be wrong on so many things that you could still lost be sent to eternal torment - by an all loving god of course.

Also, if you need religion in your life to have meaning then you clearly are the shallow one. Religion cheapens life and you're an angry God fan-club freak.

quote: Your problem is that the bible gives mandate to genocide, God even demands this from his followers.

I am quite literally amazed how wrong you are about this particular statement. You must be reading the Muslim bible lol.

quote: Yes we are, but what is coded into us is not enough. Pick up books about psychology and read. There are tons of studies.

LoL. Psychology is yet again another branch of science that is lead by people that take every study and conclusion for "absolute indisputable fact" instead of theory. Anyone who says that we know more than the most basic, and easy facts. To say we can understand (to the degree of stated fact) complex human emotion is ridiculous at best.

quote: Also, if you need religion in your life to have meaning then you clearly are the shallow one. Religion cheapens life and you're an angry God fan-club freak.

My faith in God gives me more reason to live a good life than anything.

It's obvious that we will be in a standstill no matter what. I still think you are wrong on just about every occasion. Having said that, I do have to give you credit for putting forth so much effort. Even though we disagree, I think it's best that we just accept our differences so we don't end up looking even more like arguing children haha.

I sincerely wish you the best, and hope that we don't walk away from this mean spirited.

quote: LoL. Psychology is yet again another branch of science that is lead by people that take every study and conclusion for "absolute indisputable fact" instead of theory. Anyone who says that we know more than the most basic, and easy facts. To say we can understand (to the degree of stated fact) complex human emotion is ridiculous at best.

Where have you heard that claim that it's an indisputable fact?Take the milgram study for instance (which has been repeated over and over again successfully, or the by-stander effect).. people who did what the authority asked them to give a variety of different reason as to why. Of course psychology takes into account on how complex humans can be. The thing is, this is the way to study humans, to more deeply understand them. Here's a good example:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

quote: My faith in God gives me more reason to live a good life than anything.

You wrote earlier that God gives you reason to act morally. Would you say that god forbidding murder is the only thing which keeps you away from killing someone?Why the extra step of a god? Just be good for goodness sake.

Not all creationists take the Bible’s explanation of creation as totally literal. For me it accurately portrays what happened with mankind in the beginning but in an effective story-like form. Jesus often used parables in his teachings and there are plenty of other Biblical metaphors used to represent truths. So for me it’s no stumbling block at all for scientists to find or discover what they consider evolutionary links. My personal belief is that along the way God choose humans to take on his image, which is more than just a body and also includes mind and soul. This is what makes us different from other creatures or predecessors.

As an engineer (and Christian) I would like to throw out something far more troubling for science than “evolution” could ever be for religion. It’s the laws of conservation of mass and energy. We use these LAWS to solve all kinds of difficult problems in science. Everyone knows that to become a scientific law something has to become well established and pass the test of time. So here’s the question. How can anti-creation scientists use these same wonderful laws to both further their own science and yet have no good explanation how something (everything that is) came from nothing when their own laws logically say otherwise? To me, that is WAAAAY more of a stumbling block for science than any prehistoric skeleton for creationists.

You're a bit vague in your explanation of a scientific law. Your brief explanation seems to better fit a scientific theory (something well established, lots of evidence, and has passed the test of time). A scientific law lacks explanation or a mechanism and it is generally a mathematical or short written statement.

You are not clear on your questions...are your referring to the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or evolution? The answer to the later is the Sun as the Earth is not a closed system. Scientists are working on the former issues...and I really do not know any scientists that claim something came from nothing. I hope engineers do not think that way.

This isn't correct at all. A scientific law is predicated on observation, rather than hypothesis (an "explanation or mechanism"). That's not the same thing at all as saying a scientific law lacks explanation.

I wouldn't say that "isn't correct at all"...poorly worded perhaps. For example Newton's law of universal gravitation lacks an explanation or mechanism as to why particles with mass attract/are attracted to other particles with mass.

With all due respect, you're missing the point. Laws don't "lack explanation". Precisely, they don't require an explanation, because they're based on observation, rather than hypothesis. We know the law is valid because we can see it, not because we have logically concluded it should be true. And we may or may not have an explanation for a law (for almost all we do), but its not relevant to the point.

A law stands in direct contrast to a theory, which has to have an explanation (or at least a mechanism of action), but may or may not have observational evidence to support it.

I agree that the creation of mass and energy, is inconsistent with the measurable observation that they can neither be created nor destroyed.

Here's a solution you might find acceptable:

Matter and energy enter the objective, observable universe at the edges. The outer limit of the observable universe is expanding all the time, and, perhaps always has been. New galaxies (new to you and me and Science, that is) are those whose image has just reached us for the first time. Since the speed of light limits information transfer of any kind, they effectively join the realm of cause and effect, of Engineering and Nature, and add their weight, mass, and energy to the total, just as if they were created by magic, but without violating the law of conservation of matter and energy. The entire universe arrived in this way.

You might argue that the galaxies were "there" in some sense, all the time, and must have been created in some other way first. To that I reply that physical laws only describe the behavior of observable objects. To assume more would be arrogance.

Remember Darwin just figured out one of the main ways evolution occurs. It's not "his" evolution theory. His explanation was Natural Selection. That is just a piece of the puzzle. A major one, for sure, but we have a lot more evidence in the last 150 years that he did not and could not know about.

I find it ironic that evolution requires one to faithfully believe the smart scientists who say they have massive amounts of evidence. Yet they have not been able to observe the basic mechanics of MACRO-evolution. let me see if I get this right; changing environment and competition for food compell organisms to willfully mutate in order to get ahead and all they need is several billion years of lucky lightning bolts and the ability to pass along their beneficial mutations. They have massive evidence to prove that there have existed many many millions of species of unique and fancinating diversity. Yet all these species share architectural design. they say that means they share an ancestor. this conclusion does not result from scientific method. its a faith in magical willful mutations and uber-billions of years is their god. and arrogance is their prayer. If you think a skeptic is a religeous looney, then you're already indoctrinated. I just don't believe your religeon of "evolution".

You don't believe it because you don't understand it at all, and never look at the physical evidence and logical conclusion. The majority of your explanation of evolution was completely wrong.. Point in case, there is no such thing as a "willful mutation" in any scientists mind ever.

well I admit, I do tend to mock them.... but watch enough of those documentaries. and you'll hear the implication that mutations are willful. but I agree with you, the scientists have much more lofty ways of saying it. like... natural selection.

Like I said, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and have little understanding of what natural selection actually is. Mutations are random, completely random. Every person is born with slight variations in their genetics from their parents. Natural selection is whether those variations help or hurt the animal's ability to survive. If it helps, that animal reproduces and that variation is carried on. If it hurts, that animal doesn't pass on it's variation. After many years, those small variations add up to large variations. It's not difficult to understand if you aren't willfully blocking your mind.

quote: I find it ironic that evolution requires one to faithfully believe the smart scientists who say they have massive amounts of evidence. Yet they have not been able to observe the basic mechanics of MACRO-evolution.

Surely you must be joking. MACRO evolution *is* well proven.They've done it with flies!

It's funny how the ultra-religious are so arrogant..."God, an all knowing & all powerful being would *NEVER* resort to Evolution! No, we should reject God's greatest gifts - the ability to think & reason -- and instead believe God uses magic and wands to create everything!"

I thought posting a Apple article would stir the pot, but this one is much better. I do believe in GOD, I also believe the only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Romans 14:6 says it best. I'll let you read it. I would also like to say, I believe everyone has free will. If they want to believe in something besides GOD and Jesus then have at it. It's your life and free will. However, I would suggesting thinking on this a bit, if there is no GOD and the Bible is just a story, then everyone is in the same boat. However, if GOD does exist and only those who follow him the best they can will go the heaven, the rest have a problem on their hands because GOD won't allow non-believers into heaven, but he certainly will condem them to ever last torment and suffering (Hell). Since it doesn't cost me anything to believe, I certainly don't want to have pay the price for not believing. Something to think about.

If you are wrong, you pay the price of wasting your only life by devoting it to a mythical being that doesn't exist and the eternal life you were expecting never comes. So it comes down to enjoying what you have, or devoting what you have to something that may exist, or may not. The safe bet seems to be enjoy what you have.

It's also worth noting that this type of fear mongering is how religions gain a lot of followers to being with.

You can't call any particular fossil a "missing link" because there is no way to verify that the new species is actually an ancestor of humans. For all we know, it was simply a branch that diverged from a common ancestor and died off.

I'm not sure you could say the theory of evolution is supported by "massive amounts of evidence" if there wasn't a single fossil. The fossils are extremely important.